Lord Drayson: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Tom Watson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	As part of the Government's continuing commitment to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses openly and honestly, data on the mortality of veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict are published regularly. The most recent figures for the period1 April 1991 to 30 June 2006 are published today as a national statistic on the Defence Analytical Services Agency website.
	The data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group known as the "Era cohort'" consisting of Armed Forces personnel of a similar profile in terms of gender, service, Regular/Reservists status and rank, who were in service on 1 January 1991 but who were not deployed to the Gulf. As in the previous release, the Era group has been adjusted for a small difference in the age profile of those aged 40 years and over, to ensure appropriate comparisons.
	Key points to note in the data are:
	there have been 784 deaths among the Gulf veterans and 796 in the age-adjusted Era comparison group; andthe 784 deaths among Gulf veterans compare with approximately 1,265 deaths which would have been expected in a similar-sized cohort taken from the general population of the UK with the sameage and gender profile. This reflects the strong emphasis on fitness when recruiting and retaining service personnel.
	These statistics continue to confirm that UK veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict do not suffer an excess of overall mortality compared with service personnel who did not deploy. The full notice can be viewed at www.dasa.mod.uk.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In its 2006 report to government, the Low Pay Commission recommended that the accommodation offset provisions should continue to apply to all workers housed by their employer in all circumstances; and that Government update existing guidance and raise awareness. It also recommended that the Government should implement legislative measures to prevent employers using the device of a separate accommodation company to evade the offset.
	The Government accepted the need to update guidance on the accommodation offset in its response in March 2006. In the House of Commons debate on 3 July and the Lords debate of 4 July 2006 on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment Regulations) 2006 the Government announced that it agreed with the Low Pay Commission's recommendation that the accommodation offset should apply in all situations, but believed that legislative measures were not required. Existing legislation already covers a wide range of circumstances in which the employer provides accommodation to workers. We announced our intention to consult on the clarity of the revised guidance.
	I am pleased to advise in line with better regulations guidelines that we are issuing draft guidance on the accommodation offset for consultation and will be consulting with a range of interested parties.
	Copies of the draft guidance will be placed in both Houses.

Lord Drayson: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Tom Watson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 21 November 2000 the then Minister for Veteran's Affairs (Dr Lewis Moonie) announced a package of measures intended to address emerging concerns that some Porton Down volunteers might have suffered unusual ill-health because of their participation in trials at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has sought to address these concerns through a number of measures. These include a historical survey of the Porton Down service volunteer programme 1939-89 (the period of most interest to volunteers), which is published today. It sets out a full description of the size and shape of the studies in which volunteers took part, and explores their ethical aspects. Also, the MoD is funding an independently run epidemiological study, overseen by the Medical Research Council, to assess the incidence of cancer and mortality among former Porton Down volunteers. The study is expected to report in 2007 and it is hoped that the results will be published in peer reviewed literature shortly thereafter.
	Copies of the historical survey will be placed in the Library of the House and it will also be available on the MoD website at www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Issues/PortonDownHistoricalSurvey.htm.
	The survey has been conducted by MoD officials who had no previous professional contact with Porton Down. No member of Porton Down staff was involved in determining the ground that the survey should cover or the documents which were to be consulted. Porton Down's advice has been sought in order to clarify explanations of scientific matters—for example, the effect of agents and treatments on physiology and the metrics used to measure doses and exposures. They have not had any further editorial involvement.
	I would like to place on record my deep appreciation of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's contribution as the independent supervisor to this project. I know that the survey team appreciated his valuable guidance. Sir Ian's assessment of Porton Down's conduct appears at the end of the survey. It draws on the descriptions of the trials conducted by the Chemical Defence Establishment, the information presented on how service volunteers were recruited and on Dr Alasdair Maclean's analysis of ethics codes/guidelines and practice. No attempt has been made by the MoD to summarise Sir Ian's assessment, to avoid any inadvertent changes in meaning or language.
	Sir Ian identifies a small number of trials spread over several decades which he considers "amount to serious departures from what should have been done". However, he is clear that they "are few in number". Sir Ian also warns that these studies must be viewed in the historical context of both the Second World War and the Cold War. The MoD welcomes Sir Ian's view that "a very great debt of gratitude is clearly owed to those who volunteered to take part in the research at Porton and to those who carried it out".
	The MoD takes the health of veterans very seriously indeed. We are seeking to address the concerns of former volunteers who are worried about their health and it is for this reason that the MoD established an independent medical assessment programme (MAP) at St Thomas' Hospital in London. Attendance at the MAP is free of charge but is conditional on the provision of details of participation in the Porton Down service volunteer programme and access to individual NHS medical records. If volunteers have concerns about their health and are interested in attending the MAP they should contact Porton Down on their helpline number (0800 7832521) in order to obtain their records of attendance. Volunteers also have the opportunity to inspect their own records relating to the trials in which they took part at Porton Down. Alternatively, they can contact the MAP direct on the MAP Helpline 0800 169 5401 or ask their GP for a referral. The MoD welcomes the publication of this historical survey today as being complementary to these existing resources.

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Patricia Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Shipman inquiry, chaired by Dame Janet Smith, examined the circumstances surrounding the murders of some 250 patients by Dr Harold Shipman, a general practitioner.
	Following the publication of The Shipman Inquiry: Fifth report in December 2004, which was highly critical of the General Medical Council and the broader arrangements for medical regulation, my noble friend the Minister of State, the Lord Warner, commissioned a review. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Health elected to conduct a parallel review of the arrangements in place for the regulation of the other healthcare professions in order to provide consistency of approach and in recognition of the blurring of traditional job roles in healthcare.
	The review of medical regulation was conducted by Sir Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England. His report, Good doctors, safer patients is published today, along with the parallel departmental review of non-medical regulation. Both reports focus upon the protection of the interests and safety of patients.
	Good doctors, safer patients is a rigorous and thorough report, taking into account systems of regulation in other high-risk industries, systems in operation in other jurisdictions and the views of the profession and the public. It is the first comprehensive review of medical regulation for over 30 years. There are 44 recommendations. The parallel review of non-medical regulation followed a similar process.
	Among the key themes raised in the two reports are: changes to the governance and accountability of the professional regulators; the importance of operationalised standards against which to regulate; the appropriate legal standard of proof; the introduction of an independent adjudicator; a spectrum of revalidation across all clinical professions; and devolution of some regulatory powers to the local level. Professional regulation is a complex area. I very much welcome the publication of these reports and the authoritative contribution that they make.
	Today, I am announcing a period of consultation on the proposals put forward by the Chief Medical Officer in Good doctors, safer patients, and upon the options outlined in the parallel review of non-medical regulation. As regulation of most professions is a matter reserved to Westminster, comments on the reports are invited on a UK-wide basis. Matters relating to specific devolved administrations may be copied to the appropriate administration. Both reports are accompanied by initial regulatory impact assessments. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library.